Iraq war, Saddam, Bush Admin ...again

[revelarts]

For the record.

Some have assumed I've "forgotten", ignored or purposely overlooked certains aspects of history leading up to the Iraqi conflict.
I haven't.
But it seems to me others simply want to justify Americas actions no matter what they are. Pretending the U.S. can do no wrong in going to war or even in war. And I get the impression from Drummond that you'd rather ...um ... obfuscate the full truth of the situation rather than give "our enemies" any facts to use as "propaganda" against us. But IMO historically speaking if anyone is interested in being objective, non-partisan, and willing to look at ALL of the evidence available then it seems to me very clear that Bush and his Admin pushed the world into an unnecessary war by using truths, half-truths, outdated truths and lies to convince the american people and U.N. that we were in mortal danger from WMDs and that Saddam was too unbearably to stay in power.
No one questions or forgets that Saddam burned oil fields, killed kurds, oppressed his own people, used chemical weapons, did not comply with U.N. resolutions, wasn't democratic. The question is do any and ALL of those things add up to a legal justification, Nuremberg justification, justification for American troops and money to INVADE and overthrow a small nation. They never have BEFORE in history. And since what was presented to the WORLD as the PRIMARY reason to invade was in fact WMDs, then it was an invasion under false pretense.

That's how i see it.

Now if others think the U.S has the right to simply tell other countries what to do OR ELSE we'll invade and overthrow your gov't..
then of course SURE, we can invade anyone at anytime who we don't like or who looks at us sideways if that's the standard.

But if we're claiming to be the good guys who believe in national sovereignty and national self determination, signed international war treaties then we need to act like it. not just talk like it or make up thin excuses not to act like it.
But if we're just invaders and imperialist or international gangsters just making sure we get our way no matter what, then we should own it.
yaknowwhatimean?

I suspect some here don't mind being the gangster, and being up front about it.
If that's the case fine just don't lie to everyone that we're doing it for any other reasons. democracy, freedom, safety.
Just own it. We're not the good guys we're just "wise guys" bullies and gangsters. Pressuring nations or invading nations that don't "play ball". kapish
Some might take offense and say something like --no, we're not because other nations are worse.--
Well just because you're a nicer gangster, who treats family well, doesn't mean you're not a gangster.


....
All that to say I'm just going post the evidence and reasons why I come to the conclusion i do here historically.
Feel free to post other historical info.

I suspect many will want to attack me and my motives, allegiances, patriotism, courage, sources, sanity, shoe size, etc.. OK fine
but i'm mainly trying to post historical info at this point not to debate it so much, we've done that a few times already.
I'll even repost some info that supports the other side.

Reason why I'm posting this , because Drummond assumes i'm making stuff up in another trhaed i don't want to derail anymore.

[revelarts]

IN no particular Order. I'm just dropping data/evidence.

Where did Saddam get his chemical weapons from?

U.S. Senate reports say he got much of it from the U.S.
The Riegle Report -- United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War..


http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answer...stionID=000894

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resour...ourceID=000674

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answer...stionID=000900


http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles...gao-2-7-94.pdf

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles...sesOnePage.pdf
http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles...es_to_Iraq.pdf

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/riegle-rpt.pdf

[revelarts]

Saddam Failed to comply with resolution, therefore he deserved invasion
But many other nations have fails to obey U.N. resolution but have not Been invaded.

....Other cases of noncompliance include Morocco, which invaded the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara in 1975 and remains in occupation there; Turkey, which invaded Cyprus in 1974 and remains in occupation of the northern one-third of the island in violation of U.N. demands that it withdraw; and Indonesia, which in 1975 invaded and occupied East Timor shortly before East Timor was slated to attain independence, but withdrew from the island in 1999. There are also U.N. resolutions relating to Kashmir, Angola, and numerous other conflicts around the world.According to Stephen Zunes, an associate professor of politics at San Francisco University and Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, the list of Security Council resolutions that Bush has charged the Baghdad regime is flouting is shorter than the list of U.N. Security Council resolutions currently being violated by U.S. allies.
“Not only has the United States not talked about invading these countries, the United States has blocked sanctions or other means of enforcing them and even provides military and economic aid that makes their ongoing violations possible,” said Zunes.
Because the Security Council has not authorized the use of force, the United States’ patrolling of “no-fly zones” in Iraq is itself illegal, said Zunes, even though this is done in the name of enforcing U.N. resolutions.
“Member states have spoken out against this clearly. [U.N. Secretary General] Kofi Annan has said there is no such authorization for this kind of action,” Zunes said. “If the United States could unilaterally bomb Iraq for its violations, what’s to stop Russia from bombing Israel or France from bombing Turkey or Great Britain from bombing Morocco? Those states are also in violation of United Nations resolutions. That’s the logic the United States is employing.”...

...In demanding that the United Nations do more to hold Iraq accountable, President Bush is taking an unusual step. Historically, the United Nations has been reluctant to enforce its own decrees, and when it has done so has usually preferred economic coercion via sanctions to military force. Since the United Nations was founded following World War II, it has imposed sanctions in 14 cases: Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia.
“The usual problem is getting any state to be willing to enforce a resolution,” said Jeffrey Laurenti, executive director of policy studies at the United Nations Association of the United States of America. “The United States by and large has been as reluctant as most to see that resolutions were complied with. Certainty, this is true of Angola, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Rwanda. You often have a marked disinclination even of the Security Council’s guarantor powers to put their own powers on the line in enforcement.”
Though President Bush challenged the United Nations to in effect put up or shut up to compel Iraqi compliance with its resolutions, Laurenti said many think the United Nations is, in fact, putting up when it applies economic sanctions to Iraq.
“Some would say that the economic sanctions have already been proving the U.N.’s relevance. It’s not for one country to decide whether the U.N.’s methods of enforcement are relevant but up to the full membership of the council to evaluate the threat,” Laurenti said.
With the exception of Haiti in 1994 when the United Nations authorized the use of force to remove the threat posed by Haiti’s military junta, Laurenti said the United Nations has authorized military force only in cases where armed conflict is already taking place -- Korea in 1950; Kuwait 1990-91; Bosnia and Herzegovina episodically from 1993-95. Authorization to use force was extended to France’s intervention in Rwanda after the massacres and to Italy’s operation in Albania in 1997....

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/ar...02/092702d.htm

UN Security Council Resolutions Being Violated by U.S. Allies

September 1, 2002 By journalist
The following are some of the UN Security Council resolutions being violated by U.S. allies:
Resolution 252 (1968) Israel: Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...8!OpenDocument
262 (1968) Israel: Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...b!OpenDocument
353 (1974) Turkey: Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.
www.pio.gov.cy/docs/un/security_council/res_353.htm
379 (1975) Morocco: Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
446 (1979) Israel: Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and “in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...c!OpenDocument
465 (1980) Israel: Calls on Israel “to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.”
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...5!OpenDocument
471 (1980) Israel: Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...3!OpenDocument
487 (1981) Israel: Condemns Israel for attacking Iraqi nuclear facility and calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...5!OpenDocument
497 (1981) Israel: Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...1!OpenDocument
541 (1983) Turkey: Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.
www.pio.gov.cy/docs/un/security_council/res_541.htm
573 (1985) Israel: Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...7!OpenDocument
658 (1990) Morocco: Calls upon Morocco to “cooperate fully” with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity “in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara.”
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
690 (1991) Morocco: Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
799 (1992) Israel: “Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention.”
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...1!OpenDocument
809 (1993) Morocco: Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
904 (1994) Israel: Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, “to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers.”
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...0!OpenDocument
973 (1995) Morocco: Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
995 (1995) Morocco: Calls for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.
www.accuracy.org/sahara.htm
1056 (1996) Morocco: Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.
www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/SC96/1056SC96.html
1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus: Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal of troops as well as a reduction in military spending.
www.pio.gov.cy/docs/un/security_council/res_1092.htm
1272 (1999) Indonesia: Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.
www.hri.ca/fortherecord1999/documentation/security/s-res-1272.htm
1319 (2000) Indonesia: Insists that Indonesia “take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor…”
http://domino.un.org/etelec.nsf/54d9...c!OpenDocument
1359 (2001) Morocco: Calls on the parties to “abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict.”
www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/documentation/security/s-res-1359.htm
1405 (2002) Israel: Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...3!OpenDocument
1435 (2002) Israel: Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/bdd...e!OpenDocument

http://www.accuracy.org/1026-un-secu...by-u-s-allies/

The point here is not to say that these countries should be attacked AS WELL, but that violation of resolutions does not by default mandate give an excuse for an invasion.

[revelarts]

Does the U.S. even Keep it's International agreements on Weapons and Disarmament?


"In 1997 the US agreed to decommission the 31,000 tons of sarin, VX, mustard gas and other agents it possessed within 10 years. In 2007 it requested the maximum extension of the deadline permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention — five years. Again it failed to keep its promise, and in 2012 it claimed they would be gone by 2021."

................

"U.S. Signs International Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty
In 1997, the United States ratified the United Nations International Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. By participating in the treaty, the United States agreed to destroy its stockpile of aging chemical weapons—principally mustard agent and nerve agents—by April 29, 2007. However, the final destruction deadline was extended to April 29, 2012, at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention at The Hague on December 8, 2006."

...............

"7. Work not done: 90% of the U.S. stockpile -- 30,500 tons -- was destroyed by the treaty date in 2012 at depots in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Oregon, Utah and Johnson Atoll in the Pacific. The remaining 10% -- close to 3,100 tons -- is at two sites in Colorado and Kentucky."
Updated 1:31 PM ET, Tue March 17, 2015


................


....In drafting the domestic legislation to ratify and implement the CWC, Congress and the Clinton administration included three unilateral exemptions that have undermined the multilateral treaty by creating a separate set of rules for the United States. The most damaging provision allows a U.S. president to refuse an on-site inspection by the OPCW on the grounds that it could pose a threat to national security. A second exemption prohibits the removal of chemical samples from U.S. territory for detailed analysis at independent laboratories overseas. The third exemption sharply limits the number of U.S. chemical facilities subject to declaration and routine inspection. These unilateral U.S. provisions have been serious impediments to effective implementation of the CWC, both because they violate the nondiscriminatory spirit of the treaty and because they set a bad example that other countries have begun to follow. Although Clinton administration officials sought to play down the impact of the exemptions, they have clearly had a corrosive effect. Several foreign governments have taken note of the provisions and some, such as India and Russia, have initiated steps to duplicate them....

................

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/us/che...-pueblo-debot/

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/demil/history.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemic...of_destruction

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/tucker
............

the point here is that Saddam similarly was in the process of and the inspectors said that they could have satisfyingly accounted for all the "missing" Iraqi weapons in a few more months.
The U.S. has taken Years over the "deadlines" to fulfill it's agreement, And told other countries they could not inspect our facilities.
as i said i nthe 1st post.
If you want to say that the U.S. SHOULD just be a gangster OK own that. but let not pretend that Saddam did something SO HORRIBLE and OUTRAGOUES that it he HAD to be crushed ASAP.
especially when we've done similar.

And BTW personally i AGREE that we shouldn't allow foreign inspectors in our arms plants.
and If i were a leader of a foreign country I'd believe the same.

---BUT BUT SADDAM WASN"T Cooperating and we had no idea when it'd be finished-- you say?
No. before the war began the U.N. inspectors said this.

Blix in March

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. "

"As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed....

To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.

Two ‘reconstituted’ casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.

The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.

More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.

...here is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results....

...Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to “address unresolved disarmament issues” and to identify “key remaining disarmament tasks” and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month as required.....

...I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document contains some suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled. ....

....Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.




How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes."

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

[Black Diamond]

Saddam said in his jail cell he wanted Iran to BELIEVE he had WMDs. That makes the most sense to me.

[revelarts]

Not trying to start anything ... Just FYI again

It seems there were multiple reasons for war... it wasn't about "freedom" or WmDs
1. See the memo that surfaced about the oil companies all getting their cuts after the US UK invasion. (more Mentioned in other links as well) (the timing puts the lie to the U.N. dancing going on then. Before Blixs U.N. Final WMD report. Before Powells Speech to the U.N.. War was a done deal. Oil a strategic target.)
2. Saddam was threatening to begin selling oil in euros rather than dollars. killed. A Huge problem, BTW Kadafi made the same "threat".
3. We have multiple "enduring" military bases in Iraq now.
4. And an embassy "larger than the Vatican".
5. A militarily strategic local in the middle east. To help Israel... and protect the oil flow in the region
6. the American Military industrial complex and friends of Cheney and crew have made BILLIONS/Trillions? from Iraq.
7. Saddam didn't make nice with Israel. killed.
8. the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs thought it would be easy to rule the world. But they are still trying.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000. CNN

Bush Sr. was direct
"We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom. But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies."
TIME' magazine , August 20th , 1990

"Bush said extremists controlling Iraq 'would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be 'able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.' Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. "
Wash-Post
Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon

"The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets. In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'"


Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:
"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs."

4 Star General John Abizaid – the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq – said:
"Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that."

John McCain said in 2008:
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

Sarah Palin said in 2008:
"Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."

FormerUnder Secretary of State, John Bolton said:
"The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protectour economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices."

Top REPUBLICAN Leaders Say Iraq War Was Really about Oil Washington's Blog

[Black Diamond]

The Bush administration was in conflict with itself. Rice wanted the Niger portion stricken from Bush's speech. She was overruled by Cheney, whatever that means.

Then you had Cheney implicitly contradicting the President on meet the press re al Qaeda connection.

Still I don't know that there is evidence Bush LIED about weapons. I think Saddam fooled him and the rest of the world, particularly Iran, into thinking he had weapons.

[revelarts]

The Bush administration was in conflict with itself. Rice wanted the Niger portion stricken from Bush's speech. She was overruled by Cheney, whatever that means.

Then you had Cheney implicitly contradicting the President on meet the press re al Qaeda connection.

Still I don't know that there is evidence Bush LIED about weapons. I think Saddam fooled him and the rest of the world, particularly Iran, into thinking he had weapons.

At 1st i thought it was just a series of mistakes but after seeing things like the downing st memo, the pre-war oil plans, and testimony from people inside U.S. and British intel agencies saying they made clear that the intel was bad/old/wrong but it just kept getting repeated by the Bush admin anyway... well at that point i turned the corner.

[Elessar]

Here Rev.

Remember this?

You put up 4 plates of liberal whining.

Feast on these:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/040816

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-t...e-version-3-0/

You and all whiners are full of crap and blinded by Liberal Bullshit. You deny
that the Nation stood United. The initial Intel may have been bad, but findings
show there was reason to eradicate that scourge.

Evidence was found of WMD...videos showed much was carted off
to Syria. But liberals deny it.

Bill Clinton had a chance to cut off the heads of the snakes (Saddam and Osama).
He refused to do so, just opted to shoot some cruise missiles.

[Drummond]

Having fun, Revelarts ?

The 2003 Iraq invasion was mandated, following Saddam's final refusal to cooperate with UN Resolution 1441. Had this not occurred, every tinpot dictator imaginable would've seen that they could stockpile whatever WMD's they felt like stockpiling, FREE from any degree of preventative censure. From Saddam, to Gaddafi, to anyone else.

Saddam's regime was a particularly maverick and belligerent one. Iran had been fought against. Kuwait had been invaded. The Kurds had been gassed by a WMD. There was therefore no question that Saddam could possibly be 'trusted' with any such arsenal. This also knocks the argument about 'respecting others' sovereignty' on the head, because Saddam did none of that !!

As for 'who provided Saddam with any WMD's' .. OK. An argument 'proving' America's culpability, THEREFORE argues that America takes responsibility for the outcome of it !! Therefore, Revelarts, it seems to me that the 2003 invasion was an eminently responsible action to take !!

Revelarts - once and for all !! - will you PLEASE tell me why the Left was so very determined to protect Saddam, and his brutal regime, from attack, and to foist a 'blame game' 'guilt trip' for anyone DARING to .. ??

[revelarts]

Here Rev.
Remember this?
You put up 4 plates of liberal whining.
Feast on these:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/040816
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-t...e-version-3-0/
You and all whiners are full of crap and blinded by Liberal Bullshit. You deny
that the Nation stood United. The initial Intel may have been bad, but findings
show there was reason to eradicate that scourge.
Evidence was found of WMD...videos showed much was carted off
to Syria. But liberals deny it.
Bill Clinton had a chance to cut off the heads of the snakes (Saddam and Osama).
He refused to do so, just opted to shoot some cruise missiles.

"If Bush lied about WMD, Kerry and 77% of the Senate lied also"
well .., if that what you want to go with that , OK, i won't disagree much with you.
if you really want to press it that far.

Look the thing for me is what did anyone know BEFORE they cried Wolf/WMD. left right i don't care. a lie is a lie as far as i'm concerned.
But I haven't tried to check what EVERYONE knew before hand. My focus was the band leaders not the backup players.
And as i said from , the downing st memo, the pre-war oil deals and the especially the testimonies from the people inside the the OUR OWN U.S. and UK intel agencies. it makes a reasonable and powerful case that Bush Chenney and Rumsfeild Did know very well. They had 1st hand knowledge of the BEST of the intel. And as the downing st memo states they deliberately meant to "fix" the intel to the policy, not the other way round.
From what i can tell of others, well it seems General Powell and Colonel Wilkerson didn't have access to all the info that W, Dick and Rummy had.
But Tennent knew better and he was Powell's source and Wilkerson said Tennent lied "mislead" them both. Rice I don't know, she probably knew. Pelosi COULD have known better but i suspect she was too ignorant to check or didn't WANT to know. Kerry I have no good evidence, but he's been an inside man and a player for a long time, I bet he knew exactly what was going on even if he didn't know the details. The other Ds i don't know enough to say what they knew or when.

But look if you think they all knew before hand as well and just played along with Bush and crew because they didn't want to look weak or wanted their cut or something, hey you could be right. But I can't say for sure with them. I just haven't seen as much info as i have on W and crew to say as definitively.

concerning the 199-X claims of WMDs.. yes but Powell and Rice in 2000/1 said that Saddam was "NOT a threat" that he'd been "contained" and could not even "project" much against his neighbors. much less the U.S.. and by 2002 the U.N. inspectors said they could find or determine if there were any thing of significance left "in months not years" of work... before and without an invasion.

Look, as it stands we found no "on going" nuke or wmd programs or anything close to the over hyped estimates of WMD's.
Mainly old canisters of stuff the U.S. sold him.
Everything else was all fabrication or at best exaggeration on W's and crews part.

if you think otherwise well, ok, we disagree.

[revelarts]

Having fun, Revelarts ?

just collecting some info.

The 2003 Iraq invasion was mandated, following Saddam's final refusal to cooperate with UN Resolution 1441. Had this not occurred, every tinpot dictator imaginable would've seen that they could stockpile whatever WMD's they felt like stockpiling, FREE from any degree of preventative censure. From Saddam, to Gaddafi, to anyone else.

As mentioned above many a country refuse/fail to cooperate with UN resolutions. including the U.S. and the UK. that doesn't "mandate" invasion. never has before. the "Bush doctrine" of preemptive preventative invasions is NEW, and it used to be just called .. well invasion.

Saddam's regime was a particularly maverick and belligerent one. Iran had been fought against. Kuwait had been invaded. The Kurds had been gassed by a WMD. There was therefore no question that Saddam could possibly be 'trusted' with any such arsenal. This also knocks the argument about 'respecting others' sovereignty' on the head, because Saddam did none of that !!

Saddam was a Bad guy so were many others. can the Saudis or Turks or be trusted with the billions in arms we've given them?.
And Saddam didn't have at the arsenal W claimed that's the point.
Sovereignty is ether respected or it's not. the geneva convention which we wrote goes into that a bit.
pretending that Saddam's threat rose ABOVE national sovereignty and the geneva conventions rules of war is just not realistic at all.

As for 'who provided Saddam with any WMD's' .. OK. An argument 'proving' America's culpability, THEREFORE argues that America takes responsibility for the outcome of it !! Therefore, Revelarts, it seems to me that the 2003 invasion was an eminently responsible action to take !!

If there we're enough, If they were new, if he had any real way to deploy them against anyone, if he had real plans to do so, if he tried to attack anyone again after he was FAR weaker with LESS WMD's than he had in 91' and weaker as a country in nearly every way MAYBE it'd make sense but..
yeah no.

Revelarts - once and for all !! - will you PLEASE tell me why the Left was so very determined to protect Saddam, and his brutal regime, from attack, and to foist a 'blame game' 'guilt trip' for anyone DARING to .. ??

you'd have to ask someone on the left. They won't claim me no matter how much you try to paste that label on me. it just won't stick.
Drummond There are many brutal regimes all over the planet today. which ones do you want american soldiers to attack? how many billions do you want our country to spend?
It's not a blame game it's trying to look at the facts and see if we are being honest, and the MORAL leaders of the world we claim to be or more similar to imperialist bullies.

the question is not, was Saddam was a bad guy?
that answer has always been yes.

it's, were our leaders honest getting us into war?
the answer is no

it's, was the war a good idea and justified anyway?
the answer is no.

Was the war necessary?
the answer is no.

Has the world or even the M.E. been made a better place overall because of the war?
the answer is no.

Was Iraq or Saddam worth the billions(trillions?) U.S. dollars being spent there even to this day?
the answer is no.

was Iraq or Saddam worth the broken minds, bodies and deaths of the thousands of U.S. and UK military?
I say the answer is definitely no.

[jimnyc]

I'm wondering how 77% of those folks knew enough to lie - and lie with pretty much the same story as GWB - who had not even took office when most of them made their comments? Or did Bush take their lies and run with it?

[Drummond]

just collecting some info.

.. that just happens to fit your agenda .. to the extent it genuinely does (??).

As mentioned above many a country refuse/fail to cooperate with UN resolutions. including the U.S. and the UK. that doesn't "mandate" invasion. never has before.

How many of these countries you 'have in mind' have belligerently invaded their neighbours ? How many have hated Israel, and wanted her destroyed ? How many have sheltered any senior Al Qaeda operatives ? How many have deployed a WMD, against the Kurds, for example ?

Saddam couldn't possibly be trusted with a WMD arsenal, as he ultimately proved. He and his maverick regime HAD to be neutralised. And, if 'not' .. just how very low do you set the bar, before you decide that action must be taken ??

the "Bush doctrine" of preemptive preventative invasions is NEW, and it used to be just called .. well invasion.

I've no quarrel with that. So what ? The action WAS NECESSARY.

Saddam was a Bad guy so were many others. can the Saudis or Turks or be trusted with the billions in arms we've given them?

Being careful with your words here, Revelarts ? Arms, or, WMD'S ?

And Saddam didn't have at the arsenal W claimed that's the point.

You simultaneously query America's supply of them, yet also do the bog standard Leftie thing of pushing the idea that Saddam couldn't possibly have had any ! Really, that makes no sense at all. And not finding something (even despite the 500+ old ones which WERE found !!) .. proves NOTHING about their nonexistence.

Sovereignty is ether respected or it's not. the geneva convention which we wrote goes into that a bit.

Was the intention behind the Geneva Convention to protect belligerents ?

Perhaps you'd have supported the idea of, in WWII, Allied forces stopping at the German border, and not entering that country ??

If there we're enough, If they were new, if he had any real way to deploy them against anyone, if he had real plans to do so, if he tried to attack anyone again after he was FAR weaker with LESS WMD's than he had in 91' and weaker as a country in nearly every way MAYBE it'd make sense but..
yeah no.

Wasn't part of the point of the invasion to CHECK THAT OUT ?? The point was, Revelarts, that Saddam refused to give accurate, clear accounts either of stocks, or their dispositions !!

you'd have to ask someone on the left. They won't claim me no matter how much you try to paste that label on me. it just won't stick.

You argue as a Leftie would. If you don't want to be perceived as one, then obviously, don't argue as one !!

Drummond There are many brutal regimes all over the planet today. which ones do you want american soldiers to attack? how many billions do you want our country to spend?

OK. Here's a thought for you. A few years further down the line, let's say N Korea managed to launch a fully viable long range nuclear missile, AND, it got through to wipe out an American city. You can't say with total, 100 percent confidence that it CAN'T happen !

Assume it's happened, for the sake of argument. What value would you, then, place on your talk of 'billions America might've spent on preventing such a disaster' ?

It's not a blame game it's trying to look at the facts and see if we are being honest, and the MORAL leaders of the world we claim to be or more similar to imperialist bullies.

Were you being 'imperialist bullies' when you smashed the Third Reich ? There are times, Revelarts, when you DO what you must DO.

the question is not, was Saddam was a bad guy?
that answer has always been yes.

.. but it took a while to confirm. However, action was, ultimately, taken. Which you don't like !!

it's, were our leaders honest getting us into war?
the answer is no

A serious charge. You need to PROVE they comprehensively lied to make that charge stick. You've yet to do so.

it's, was the war a good idea and justified anyway?
the answer is no.

Tinpot dictators with massive WMD arsenals is BETTER, then ???

Was the war necessary?
the answer is no.

Dream on. And see above.

Has the world or even the M.E. been made a better place overall because of the war?
the answer is no.

CRAP. Again, see above !

Was Iraq or Saddam worth the billions(trillions?) U.S. dollars being spent there even to this day?
the answer is no.

The world could've been taught the lesson that WMD arsenals will never be challenged, or questioned, no matter who has them ???

--- And you're NOT a Leftie ????????

was Iraq or Saddam worth the broken minds, bodies and deaths of the thousands of U.S. and UK military?

I say the answer is definitely no.

Prove to me that mere bombing runs could've dealt with the outstanding WMD issue in Iraq, then ....

[revelarts]

.. that just happens to fit your agenda .. to the extent it genuinely does (??).
How many of these countries you 'have in mind' have belligerently invaded their neighbours ? How many have hated Israel, and wanted her destroyed ? How many have sheltered any senior Al Qaeda operatives ? How many have deployed a WMD, against the Kurds, for example ?
Saddam couldn't possibly be trusted with a WMD arsenal, as he ultimately proved. He and his maverick regime HAD to be neutralised. And, if 'not' .. just how very low do you set the bar, before you decide that action must be taken ??
I've no quarrel with that. So what ? The action WAS NECESSARY.
Being careful with your words here, Revelarts ? Arms, or, WMD'S ?
You simultaneously query America's supply of them, yet also do the bog standard Leftie thing of pushing the idea that Saddam couldn't possibly have had any ! Really, that makes no sense at all. And not finding something (even despite the 500+ old ones which WERE found !!) .. proves NOTHING about their nonexistence.
Was the intention behind the Geneva Convention to protect belligerents ?
Perhaps you'd have supported the idea of, in WWII, Allied forces stopping at the German border, and not entering that country ??
Wasn't part of the point of the invasion to CHECK THAT OUT ?? The point was, Revelarts, that Saddam refused to give accurate, clear accounts either of stocks, or their dispositions !!
You argue as a Leftie would. If you don't want to be perceived as one, then obviously, don't argue as one !!
OK. Here's a thought for you. A few years further down the line, let's say N Korea managed to launch a fully viable long range nuclear missile, AND, it got through to wipe out an American city. You can't say with total, 100 percent confidence that it CAN'T happen !
Assume it's happened, for the sake of argument. What value would you, then, place on your talk of 'billions America might've spent on preventing such a disaster' ?
Were you being 'imperialist bullies' when you smashed the Third Reich ? There are times, Revelarts, when you DO what you must DO.
.. but it took a while to confirm. However, action was, ultimately, taken. Which you don't like !!
A serious charge. You need to PROVE they comprehensively lied to make that charge stick. You've yet to do so.
Tinpot dictators with massive WMD arsenals is BETTER, then ???
Dream on. And see above.
CRAP. Again, see above !
The world could've been taught the lesson that WMD arsenals will never be challenged, or questioned, no matter who has them ???
--- And you're NOT a Leftie ????????
[/I]
Prove to me that mere bombing runs could've dealt with the outstanding WMD issue in Iraq, then ....

we disagree